dhesha
04-18 06:32 PM
Nice talking to you, and thanks much for your guidance, help, and time Chandu. The short phone conversation with you was quite informative and helpful. Thanks to IV for your initiatives to help the members who are in trouble with immigration matters.
Thanks.
Many of us can run into these situations since we all have a long long way to go for our GCs, it will be helpful if this great secret information can be put in here so that all of us already know what to do when we hit this issue.
Thanks.
Many of us can run into these situations since we all have a long long way to go for our GCs, it will be helpful if this great secret information can be put in here so that all of us already know what to do when we hit this issue.
wallpaper Sexy Girl - Free PSP Wallpaper
wandmaker
11-06 11:39 AM
Hi All,
Please help me by answering the following questions and also bear with me if those are basic questions. Thanks a lot for the help in advance.
1. My employer asked me to wait few months for at least partial job market recovery and advised its better to start the labor filing preparation sometime in Nov 2009/Dec 2009. There is a positive news on the job market recovery. Is it a good time to apply for PERM Labor now? FYI, my second H1B expires 09/30/2011.
2. Is it possible to file multiple PERM Labor Certifications through two different employers at the same time? If yes, could I choose the employer I would like to stay, if both gets approved approximately at the same time?
3. How long I can continue with future employment in the GC process?
4. If the Labor get audited, is it possible to apply for H1B extension after 6th year?
5. Is it possible to port I-140 & procedure involved to port with / without the consent of current employer.
All the best!!!
-
Regards
Ajaykumar
#1 - If a suitable USC, LPR responds your PERM advert then you can not move forward with PERM labor processing. When the job market is good, number of people responding to the advert will low, so it increases the chances for you.
#2 & 3 - You can have N number of employers file the PERM labor for you, it is a future job - you do not have to join them unti the green card is approved.
#4 - As long is your labor is pending, you can extend your H1B by 1 year until it is approved or declined.
#5 - First, only your employer can file a 140 petition on behalf of you. Second, You can not use employer X's labor to file 140 with employer Y. Third, Once your 140 is approved, the PD is yours keep and port as long as it not revoked or withdrawn before you opt for porting.
Please help me by answering the following questions and also bear with me if those are basic questions. Thanks a lot for the help in advance.
1. My employer asked me to wait few months for at least partial job market recovery and advised its better to start the labor filing preparation sometime in Nov 2009/Dec 2009. There is a positive news on the job market recovery. Is it a good time to apply for PERM Labor now? FYI, my second H1B expires 09/30/2011.
2. Is it possible to file multiple PERM Labor Certifications through two different employers at the same time? If yes, could I choose the employer I would like to stay, if both gets approved approximately at the same time?
3. How long I can continue with future employment in the GC process?
4. If the Labor get audited, is it possible to apply for H1B extension after 6th year?
5. Is it possible to port I-140 & procedure involved to port with / without the consent of current employer.
All the best!!!
-
Regards
Ajaykumar
#1 - If a suitable USC, LPR responds your PERM advert then you can not move forward with PERM labor processing. When the job market is good, number of people responding to the advert will low, so it increases the chances for you.
#2 & 3 - You can have N number of employers file the PERM labor for you, it is a future job - you do not have to join them unti the green card is approved.
#4 - As long is your labor is pending, you can extend your H1B by 1 year until it is approved or declined.
#5 - First, only your employer can file a 140 petition on behalf of you. Second, You can not use employer X's labor to file 140 with employer Y. Third, Once your 140 is approved, the PD is yours keep and port as long as it not revoked or withdrawn before you opt for porting.
pappu
02-02 02:54 PM
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Naturalization
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
2011 Graffiti Psp Wallpaper. psp
waiting4gc
07-17 08:46 PM
Some lawyers ask for bank statement and w2s and file I 864 with GC to show proof that you can support your dependents(if you have any). Ideally I 864 is only required when you file Family based GC.
Some other lawyers similarly ask for I 134 and bank statement to show that you can support dependents. Again this is NOT REQUIRED.
There is no clarity on what should be done. Each lawyer has his/her own style of filing 485 so if your lawyer asked for it, provide it. If not, don't bother. I know of people filing with and without 864 or 134 and still getting approved.
yeah why bank statment? My attoreny did say anything about tax return either ? are you sureeeeeeeeeeeee?
Some other lawyers similarly ask for I 134 and bank statement to show that you can support dependents. Again this is NOT REQUIRED.
There is no clarity on what should be done. Each lawyer has his/her own style of filing 485 so if your lawyer asked for it, provide it. If not, don't bother. I know of people filing with and without 864 or 134 and still getting approved.
yeah why bank statment? My attoreny did say anything about tax return either ? are you sureeeeeeeeeeeee?
more...
gc_chahiye
07-09 06:02 PM
gc_chahiye - Is it possible to somehow keep the results of the first poll in the main page? It is the only data we have which comes anywhere near the real data, and it would provide good reference.
done. The first post in each poll has a link to the other poll now.
done. The first post in each poll has a link to the other poll now.
waitin_toolong
11-19 09:36 AM
as long as the I-797 is current the expired stamp does not matter but do send a copy of it.
You dont have to renew EAD if she is not working and save $340. Her next EAD (whenever she applies) will be a new Application.
But do remember it always takes time to obtain an EAD so if she needs it any time in future she will have to wait so be very sure about not working. EAD is not a proof of legal status only an authorization toi work so you dont need it if you dont plan to work.
As for AP, unless you dont plan to travel even for emergency reasons of have valid H1 stamped or can get it stamped you dont need it.
For wife make sure her travel is not in between applications. She should travel with an approved AP and apply for renewal and wait for it to be approved before she departs the country.
You dont have to renew EAD if she is not working and save $340. Her next EAD (whenever she applies) will be a new Application.
But do remember it always takes time to obtain an EAD so if she needs it any time in future she will have to wait so be very sure about not working. EAD is not a proof of legal status only an authorization toi work so you dont need it if you dont plan to work.
As for AP, unless you dont plan to travel even for emergency reasons of have valid H1 stamped or can get it stamped you dont need it.
For wife make sure her travel is not in between applications. She should travel with an approved AP and apply for renewal and wait for it to be approved before she departs the country.
more...
enthu999
07-17 06:17 PM
Fitz,
Following is some clarification that I got from my Lawyer..
1) Will there be any problem if I am not able to make it back on Oct-1st, due to any unforeseen reason, If 485 is already received by USCIS and pending?
a) You need to be physically present here when I-485 is filed. After that, it doesn't matter where you are. At some point you may be scheduled for fingerprinting, but you will likely have months for that.
2) If we leave on TN after filing AOS is there any chance that USCIS will consider the AOS request abandoned even if we return on Oct-1st in H status?
a) An I-485 can't be abandoned simply because you left the USA
3) Once we file 485 do we need to wait for the receipt before traveling abroad?
a) No.
Following is some clarification that I got from my Lawyer..
1) Will there be any problem if I am not able to make it back on Oct-1st, due to any unforeseen reason, If 485 is already received by USCIS and pending?
a) You need to be physically present here when I-485 is filed. After that, it doesn't matter where you are. At some point you may be scheduled for fingerprinting, but you will likely have months for that.
2) If we leave on TN after filing AOS is there any chance that USCIS will consider the AOS request abandoned even if we return on Oct-1st in H status?
a) An I-485 can't be abandoned simply because you left the USA
3) Once we file 485 do we need to wait for the receipt before traveling abroad?
a) No.
2010 Gunslinger Girl PSP Wallpaper
martinvisalaw
03-16 04:27 PM
1) Since she doesn't have any paystub/w2, is it possible to do COS?
She doesn't need a paystub to change from H-4 to H-1B. In fact, a paystub would hurt since she should not be working in H-4 status.
2) If #1 is okay what are DOCs she or me (if applicable) has to provide.
The employer's attorney will tell her what documents she needs to probe her current status.
3) How long does it take to complete the COS if done by PP.
PP guarantees a response in 15 calendar days
4) How much risk does this case carry/what are the issues she could face?
What type of risk do you worry about? I don't see any more risk here than in any other H-1B petition.
She doesn't need a paystub to change from H-4 to H-1B. In fact, a paystub would hurt since she should not be working in H-4 status.
2) If #1 is okay what are DOCs she or me (if applicable) has to provide.
The employer's attorney will tell her what documents she needs to probe her current status.
3) How long does it take to complete the COS if done by PP.
PP guarantees a response in 15 calendar days
4) How much risk does this case carry/what are the issues she could face?
What type of risk do you worry about? I don't see any more risk here than in any other H-1B petition.
more...
jsb
12-17 09:41 AM
A million dollar question is : What order are they following ? I am having PD of April 14th , 2004. Still waiting.
They definitely are not working in PD order. PD is only used to skip a case if not due. They seem to work in order of paper filed cases, which are perhaps stacked in order they physically receive them (which is generally a date a few days prior to ND). That's what they mean when they claim "we process cased in order we receive them".
With above logic, your case was "received" in CSC in July08. Therefore, they are unlikely to look at it until they look those received prior to July'08. This is bad management, but that's how they seem to work. That also proves as to why they ask/get wider PD openings as year end nears (so that they don't have to skip too many cases when they pick cases one after another in order they physically received them).
They definitely are not working in PD order. PD is only used to skip a case if not due. They seem to work in order of paper filed cases, which are perhaps stacked in order they physically receive them (which is generally a date a few days prior to ND). That's what they mean when they claim "we process cased in order we receive them".
With above logic, your case was "received" in CSC in July08. Therefore, they are unlikely to look at it until they look those received prior to July'08. This is bad management, but that's how they seem to work. That also proves as to why they ask/get wider PD openings as year end nears (so that they don't have to skip too many cases when they pick cases one after another in order they physically received them).
hair This PSP wallpaper is in PSP
sarasuva
01-30 12:25 AM
Hi,
-I got my I140 approved in MAY 2006.
-I got my 3 years H1B based on I140 approval. I went to India for stamping as I was out of status for 10 months due to 7th year extension pending for a long time with USCIS.
- I came to USA on this H1B in JUNE'2006 with approval until JUNE'2009.
-On JAN 2007, my company has received a letter from USCIS to 'INTENT TO Revoke' the approved I140.
-My employer responded to USCIS letter with required documents.
-We are waiting for USCIS decision.
In this situation
1.Will my H1B also be revoked if I140 is revoked?
2. Can I transfer my H1B to another employer. How much time do I have?
3. If I transfer my H1B(i have approval until JUNE2009), can I apply new labor and I140 and get extension again after 2009.
Any other suggestions , help that you can do. Please advise?
-I got my I140 approved in MAY 2006.
-I got my 3 years H1B based on I140 approval. I went to India for stamping as I was out of status for 10 months due to 7th year extension pending for a long time with USCIS.
- I came to USA on this H1B in JUNE'2006 with approval until JUNE'2009.
-On JAN 2007, my company has received a letter from USCIS to 'INTENT TO Revoke' the approved I140.
-My employer responded to USCIS letter with required documents.
-We are waiting for USCIS decision.
In this situation
1.Will my H1B also be revoked if I140 is revoked?
2. Can I transfer my H1B to another employer. How much time do I have?
3. If I transfer my H1B(i have approval until JUNE2009), can I apply new labor and I140 and get extension again after 2009.
Any other suggestions , help that you can do. Please advise?
more...
softcrowd
02-07 09:46 AM
As many people stated already, Parents do not qualify for H4 status. They can come here on Visitors (B2) visa but that way their stay here can not be more than 6 months & frequent such stays also raise a red flag.
So, unless one becomes Citizen - I can't think of an alternative to bring parents on a permanent basis. I wish there is a way too!!
So, unless one becomes Citizen - I can't think of an alternative to bring parents on a permanent basis. I wish there is a way too!!
hot girl robot PSP Wallpaper
gimme_GC2006
05-04 05:58 PM
how is that cheating? If I take a appartment on rent with lease on my name, pay my rent, pay my taxes, work for a US based company, pay my bills?
Well..I guess..eb3retro may have wanted to know if that is not cheating then what would be anybody's intention in paying all those rents/taxes when you are not physically here :confused:
Well..I guess..eb3retro may have wanted to know if that is not cheating then what would be anybody's intention in paying all those rents/taxes when you are not physically here :confused:
more...
house Download PSP Wallpaper Here
wandmaker
10-23 10:15 AM
Thanks guys,
But I am still not 100% clear. I thought both of them have independent EAD statuses, but applying together is because of maritial status.
Is it not needed for wife's case to be independently handled.
You can have independent status of EAD, but your wife's EAD is based on her 485 and her 485 is based on your 485. If your 485 is denied, your EAD is invalid and you dont have any status. Eventually her 485 will also be denied based on your denial that will make her EAD invalid. Hope this helps! Basic rule! Until the 485 denial of individual application, individual EAD is valid
But I am still not 100% clear. I thought both of them have independent EAD statuses, but applying together is because of maritial status.
Is it not needed for wife's case to be independently handled.
You can have independent status of EAD, but your wife's EAD is based on her 485 and her 485 is based on your 485. If your 485 is denied, your EAD is invalid and you dont have any status. Eventually her 485 will also be denied based on your denial that will make her EAD invalid. Hope this helps! Basic rule! Until the 485 denial of individual application, individual EAD is valid
tattoo home » PSP Wallpaper » Girl
desitechie
10-06 03:13 PM
hello ,
I filed a address change on line , 10 days back no LUD on any of my forms
EAD, 131 and I 485 , i know that USCIS should send a mail conforming the
same How long will it take to get this mail
thanks
Did you get the snail mail from USCIS for the AR11 address change?
Thanks
I filed a address change on line , 10 days back no LUD on any of my forms
EAD, 131 and I 485 , i know that USCIS should send a mail conforming the
same How long will it take to get this mail
thanks
Did you get the snail mail from USCIS for the AR11 address change?
Thanks
more...
pictures Girl K-On! PSP Wallpaper
jumanji4u
01-27 02:02 PM
Congrats!!!. Let your shining success prevail on us. :D
dresses Heart Girl PSP Wallpaper
arnet
09-13 02:28 PM
Started this thread just to encourage us after oct bulletin:
We know that unless a bill is passed (SKIL), retrogression issue cant be solved. It is not an easier task to accomplish but a task that needs more courage and efforts. Each time when we see the visa bulletin with no movement in dates, we feel more depressed but we should always remember this, no matter how many times we fall or pushed back, our goal is to get up and move with more strength. Now everyone is going through tough phases of life in one way or the other. This is not new for us, we have dealt this type of problems before.
As people say: "good things will happen to those who wait". Our team efforts (in IV), our hard work and prayers will definitely move the mountains. All we need now is faith and patience so that we can put focussed efforts to pass this SKIL bill by end of this year. Soon we will find ways to achieve this.
We know that unless a bill is passed (SKIL), retrogression issue cant be solved. It is not an easier task to accomplish but a task that needs more courage and efforts. Each time when we see the visa bulletin with no movement in dates, we feel more depressed but we should always remember this, no matter how many times we fall or pushed back, our goal is to get up and move with more strength. Now everyone is going through tough phases of life in one way or the other. This is not new for us, we have dealt this type of problems before.
As people say: "good things will happen to those who wait". Our team efforts (in IV), our hard work and prayers will definitely move the mountains. All we need now is faith and patience so that we can put focussed efforts to pass this SKIL bill by end of this year. Soon we will find ways to achieve this.
more...
makeup PSP Wallpaper Maximo Girls
gcseeker2002
06-18 05:52 PM
I am not getting any appointment in June with any doctor within 60 miles from my place. So I took an appointment with a doc 70+ miles away for end of june. The only problem is I need to go twice 70 miles one way. The clinic suggested I do the blood work in nearby county clinic, but the county clinic wants 7-10 days to get results of blood work. I asked them for HIV and Sephallius test to be done. I already got TB Skin test(tested negative) done at county clinic.
Can someone please tell what all blood tests need to be done, so I can check if any other doctor can do the blood work and I can save one 70 mile trip . Thanks.
Can someone please tell what all blood tests need to be done, so I can check if any other doctor can do the blood work and I can save one 70 mile trip . Thanks.
girlfriend Gossip girl wallpaper with
cleopatra
02-07 10:57 AM
We did check that. What we wanted was I.T project manager, but it got classified as CIS Manager.
We cannot change the job from Project manager to Computer systems analysts.
I am going to be promoted as Project manager, so we need to get a PM role.
Is there anyone who got "Project Manager" in EB2 classification?
We cannot change the job from Project manager to Computer systems analysts.
I am going to be promoted as Project manager, so we need to get a PM role.
Is there anyone who got "Project Manager" in EB2 classification?
hairstyles Free PSP Wallpapers - Bomber
shana04
08-05 03:12 AM
Which number is used to call FBI?
Please post FBI calling details here..
FBI direct number
304-625-5590
press 2
press 5
press 3
Customer Service agents answers the phone and would ask for your
A # and SSN, Give her A# and SSN.
She would confirm with Last and First Name and address.
, this only tells your FP check is cleared or not
CS lady told that FP notice have been sent to Immigration dept and today when I check my mail I got the FP notice.
I have even asked about name check and she said she does not have any info on that.
Then I asked her about my wife case. She took info and checked about her case too.
Hope this info helps you.
Good luck
Please post FBI calling details here..
FBI direct number
304-625-5590
press 2
press 5
press 3
Customer Service agents answers the phone and would ask for your
A # and SSN, Give her A# and SSN.
She would confirm with Last and First Name and address.
, this only tells your FP check is cleared or not
CS lady told that FP notice have been sent to Immigration dept and today when I check my mail I got the FP notice.
I have even asked about name check and she said she does not have any info on that.
Then I asked her about my wife case. She took info and checked about her case too.
Hope this info helps you.
Good luck
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
mk6
07-17 07:05 PM
Thanks for your list. So it seems we can do it without attorney help. I am not sure what my attorney is doing its been a month since he had all the papers and fee. I am going to try filing myself:mad:
